Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

I personally would have preferred someone other than (2007 headliner) RHCP, but I suppose their last 6 albums have all reached the top 4 in the US charts and they have 25 singles that went top 10 on the US Alt chart. But not exactly current & relevant nor quite legends.

Phoenix? 1 album that ever charted in the US (#37) and 3 singles that showed up anywhere here, but at least current & have the hope of their new album.

Blur + Stone Roses though? No albums or singles ever in US top 45. Not current, not legends, almost no US success in their day, not reuniting for the first time in ages or anything. Putting the 2 of them together doesn't solve those problems.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Spasso

Blur + Stone Roses though? No albums or singles ever in US top 45. Not current, not legends, almost no US success in their day, not reuniting for the first time in ages or anything. Putting the 2 of them together doesn't solve those problems.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

i agree. paul tollett has just gone out of the way with his sometimes retarded love for the brit bands that mean shit in the USA
i truly respect that, he is a music fan and thats great, but this now is just a bit too much
i would understand if its an exclusivity thing, but its just the opposite, both blur and the stone roses played last year or will play this year every shitty fest in the world, so cant count on the brits traveling to coachella to see them
and in the US - these 2 bands are club level acts

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

I feel like they adopted the Sasquatch Festival way of booking. Get every top mid-card act you can and pick a couple to put on the top line in large font.

What used to be my YouTube Channel before dozens of my Coachella footage were flagged for copyright and my channel was terminated, erasing 10 years of Coachella and live concert history (that I recorded) from the internet. http://www.youtube.com/magmazing

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

I'm English and I was shocked that blur and the roses are headlining, I thought they'd be there , but never headlining. Lot of people might not know their music , but one thing both bands will do is put an amazing live show on. I'm sure there will be enough Europeans , Australians to make the night a proper atmosphere.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Sladokusac

i agree. paul tollett has just gone out of the way with his sometimes retarded love for the brit bands that mean shit in the USA
i truly respect that, he is a music fan and thats great, but this now is just a bit too much
i would understand if its an exclusivity thing, but its just the opposite, both blur and the stone roses played last year or will play this year every shitty fest in the world, so cant count on the brits traveling to coachella to see them
and in the US - these 2 bands are club level acts

Johnny Marr is playing Friday and the main stage will be a Manchester love fest. Laying the groundwork for 2014?

I also think you underestimate the number of Brits and other international fans that fly in, especially for W1.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Definitely the most underwhelmed that I've felt looking at a lineup drop. I'm not sure if it is because of the lack of solid headliners or if it is because pretty much every "wow" act was already revealed through other sources or fests getting bands or were expected. I was laughed at by a few people last year when I said that the XX and Vampire Weekend would be subs in 2013, and now I am almost disappointed to see them at 2 and 3 on their respected days. I guess the biggest "surprises" for me are New Order and Modest Mouse. Didn't expect them so I guess that's cool.

And if RHCP closes out the fest, it'll be an early night in for a lot of people in the campgrounds.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

I am still baffled by Blur/Stone Roses just because I do not think the average American knows their stuff. For many people at the festival, they will only know one song (Song 2) between those two headliners, and many of them will not even know it is a Blur song. I had Blur as a #2 and Stone Roses in the Mojave/Outdoor in my head.

Phoenix is sort of weak, but they are very popular and have had more commercial success with singles than, say, Arcade Fire, so I'm not necessarily hating on them. This new album needs to be pretty big though.

RHCP...we all hate them, but this is a huge band.

Anyway, the headliners made me depressed for about 30 seconds when I saw the lineup, but everything else below that is pure gold.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Sladokusac

i would understand if its an exclusivity thing, but its just the opposite, both blur and the stone roses played last year or will play this year every shitty fest in the world, so cant count on the brits traveling to coachella to see them
and in the US - these 2 bands are club level acts

FWIW, pretty sure it's the first and possibly only reunion show for both bands in the US.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

every year I'm a bit disappointed at the lineup...this year not as much, but understand once you start researching the bands....there are always awesome groups you've never heard of that you'll become a fan of once you see them live at Coachella.

I don't get caught up in the initial feeling of the lineup release....because I know even if the sesame street band was the headliner I always have a blast at the festival.

Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this…and totally redeem yourself!

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Honestly, I just don't get why they would go with RHCP over Pearl Jam. It makes zero sense. The only explanation would be an irrational one, ie. Goldenvoice has a grudge against Eddie Vedder for trying to taking legal action against ticket master.